***Starting on March 7th, 2024, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) will adopt a new Records Management System for reporting crimes and arrests. This new system is being implemented to comply with the FBI's mandate to collect NIBRS-only data (NIBRS — FBI - https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/ucr/nibrs). During this transition, users will temporarily see only incidents reported in the retiring system. However, the LAPD is actively working on generating new NIBRS datasets to ensure a smoother and more efficient reporting system. *** **Update 1/18/2024 - LAPD is facing issues with posting the Crime data, but we are taking immediate action to resolve the problem. We understand the importance of providing reliable and up-to-date information and are committed to delivering it. As we work through the issues, we have temporarily reduced our updates from weekly to bi-weekly to ensure that we provide accurate information. Our team is actively working to identify and resolve these issues promptly. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding. Rest assured, we are doing everything we can to fix the problem and get back to providing weekly updates as soon as possible. ** This dataset reflects incidents of crime in the City of Los Angeles dating back to 2020. This data is transcribed from original crime reports that are typed on paper and therefore there may be some inaccuracies within the data. Some location fields with missing data are noted as (0°, 0°). Address fields are only provided to the nearest hundred block in order to maintain privacy. This data is as accurate as the data in the database. Please note questions or concerns in the comments.

This dataset includes all valid felony, misdemeanor, and violation crimes reported to the New York City Police Department (NYPD) for all complete quarters so far this year (2017). For additional details, please see the attached data dictionary in the ‘About’ section.

Note: Due to the RMS change for CPS, this data set stops on 6/2/2024. For records beginning on 6/3/2024, please see the dataset at this link: https://data.cincinnati-oh.gov/safety/Reported-Crime-STARS-Category-Offenses-/7aqy-xrv9/about_data

The combined data will be available by 3/10/2025 at the linke above.

Data Description: This data represents reported Crime Incidents in the City of Cincinnati. Incidents are the records, of reported crimes, collated by an agency for management. Incidents are typically housed in a Records Management System (RMS) that stores agency-wide data about law enforcement operations. This does not include police calls for service, arrest information, final case determination, or any other incident outcome data.

Data Creation: The Cincinnati Police Department's (CPD) records crime incidents in the City through Records Management System (RMS) that stores agency-wide data about law enforcement operations.

Data Created By: The source of this data is the Cincinnati Police Department.

Refresh Frequency: This data is updated daily.

CincyInsights: The City of Cincinnati maintains an interactive dashboard portal, CincyInsights in addition to our Open Data in an effort to increase access and usage of city data. This data set has an associated dashboard available here: https://insights.cincinnati-oh.gov/stories/s/8eaa-xrvz

Data Dictionary: A data dictionary providing definitions of columns and attributes is available as an attachment to this dataset.

Processing: The City of Cincinnati is committed to providing the most granular and accurate data possible. In that pursuit the Office of Performance and Data Analytics facilitates standard processing to most raw data prior to publication. Processing includes but is not limited: address verification, geocoding, decoding attributes, and addition of administrative areas (i.e. Census, neighborhoods, police districts, etc.).

Data Usage: For directions on downloading and using open data please visit our How-to Guide: https://data.cincinnati-oh.gov/dataset/Open-Data-How-To-Guide/gdr9-g3ad

Disclaimer: In compliance with privacy laws, all Public Safety datasets are anonymized and appropriately redacted prior to publication on the City of Cincinnati’s Open Data Portal. This means that for all public safety datasets: (1) the last two digits of all addresses have been replaced with “XX,” and in cases where there is a single digit street address, the entire address number is replaced with "X"; and (2) Latitude and Longitude have been randomly skewed to represent values within the same block area (but not the exact location) of the incident.

Police recorded crime figures by Police Force Area and Community Safety Partnership areas (which equate in the majority of instances, to local authorities).

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), previously called the National Crime Survey (NCS), has been collecting data on personal and household victimization through an ongoing survey of a nationally-representative sample of residential addresses since 1973. The NCVS was designed with four primary objectives: (1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, (2) to estimate the number and types of crimes not reported to the police, (3) to provide uniform measures of selected types of crimes, and (4) to permit comparisons over time and types of areas. Beginning in 1992, the survey categorizes crimes as "personal" or "property." Personal crimes include rape and sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and purse-snatching/pocket-picking, while property crimes include burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and vandalism. Each respondent is asked a series of screen questions designed to determine whether she or he was victimized during the six-month period preceding the first day of the month of the interview. A "household respondent" is also asked to report on crimes against the household as a whole (e.g., burglary, motor vehicle theft). The data include type of crime, month, time, and location of the crime, relationship between victim and offender, characteristics of the offender, self-protective actions taken by the victim during the incident and results of those actions, consequences of the victimization, type of property lost, whether the crime was reported to police and reasons for reporting or not reporting, and offender use of weapons, drugs, and alcohol. Basic demographic information such as age, race, gender, and income is also collected, to enable analysis of crime by various subpopulations. This dataset represents the concatenated version of the NCVS on a collection year basis for 1992-2022. A collection year contains records from interviews conducted in the 12 months of the given year. Under the collection year format, victimizations are counted in the year the interview is conducted, regardless of the year when the crime incident occurred.For additional information on the dataset, please see the documentation for the data from the most current year of the NCVS, ICPSR Study 38603.

This statistic shows the crime severity index value of metropolitan areas in Canada in 2023. As of 2023, the crime severity index in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, stood at 116.31.

Abstract (en): The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of Neighborhood Watch signs on perceived crime rates, likelihood of victimization, community safety, and estimates of home and community quality. Part 1 (Study One Data) assessed the causal impact of Neighborhood Watch sign presence and content on perceptions of the community. Three Neighborhood Watch signs were incorporated into a series of slide show presentations. The signs utilized the traditional orange and white color scheme with black text and were used to represent an injunctive norm alone, a low descriptive norm for crime, or a high descriptive norm for crime. Digital color images of a for-sale home and the surrounding neighborhood of a middle class community in North San Diego County were shown to 180 undergraduates recruited from the Psychology Department's Human Participant Pool, and from other lower division general education courses at California State University, San Marcos, between July and November of 2005. Three of the slide shows were designated as Neighborhood Watch communities with one of the three sign types posted, and the fourth slide show served as a control with no posted crime prevention signs. Each slide show consisted of 20 images of the home and community, along with four instruction slides. Part 2 (Study Two Data) replicated the basic effect from Study 1 and extended the research to examine the moderating role of community social economic status (SES) on the effects of the Neighborhood Watch signs. Participants were 547 undergraduate students recruited from the Psychology Department's Human Participant Pool, and from other lower division general education courses at California State University and Palomar Community College in San Marcos, between January and September 2006. A total of 12 slide shows were utilized in Study Two, such that each of the four sign conditions from Study One was represented across each of the three communities (Low, Middle, and High SES). Part 3 (Study Three Data) examined the potential for the physical condition of the Neighborhood Watch signs posted in the community to convey normative information about the presence and acceptance of crime in the community. Participants were 364 undergraduate students recruited from the Psychology Department's Human Participant Pool, and from other lower division general education courses at California State University and Palomar Community College in San Marcos, between October 2006 and March 2007. Study Three used the same generic (Injunctive Norm, Program Only) sign that was utilized in Studies One and Two. However, three variations (new, aged, and defaced) of the sign were used. The surveys used for Study One, Study Two, and Study Three, were identical. The data include variables on perceived crime rates, perceived likelihood of victimization, perceived community safety, community ratings, self-protective behavior, burglar's perspective, manipulation check, and demographics of the respondent. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of Neighborhood Watch signs on perceived crime rates, likelihood of victimization, community safety, and estimates of home and community quality. The goal of Study One (Part 1) was to assess the causal impact of Neighborhood Watch sign presence and content on perceptions of the community. Three Neighborhood Watch signs were incorporated into a series of slide show presentations. The signs utilized the traditional orange and white color scheme with black text and were used to represent an injunctive norm alone, a low descriptive norm for crime, or a high descriptive norm for crime. The three signs are worded as follows: Generic (Injunctive Norm, Program Only): "Neighborhood Watch Program in Force" with the familiar picture of a burglar with a red circle and bar.; Low Descriptive Norm: "Neighborhood Watch Program in Force: This area has been identified by the City as a Crime Free Zone" with the picture of a burglar with red circle and bar.; High Descriptive Norm: "Neighborhood Watch Program in Force: This area has been identified by the City as a High Crime Area" with the picture of a burglar with red circle and bar.; Digital color images of a for-sale home and the surrounding neighborhood of a middle class community in North San Diego County were shown to 180 undergraduates recruited from the Psychology Department's Human Participant Pool, and lower division general education courses at California State University, S...